User talk:Wheelchair Epidemic/Article Deletion Squadron

This page was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization. Our lawyers are looking at launching a lawsuit at the moment.

"As much chance of being a serious article as Boris Johnson is of being a credible politician"

Perhaps a series of SAT analogies might help us? :) Protonk (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiff-waff. That is all. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is funny

In addition, the contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Mind you, that might be a bonus, given some of the crap that we have to wade through at WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:AFD. My cat could write better articles than some of this lot. And she can spell.

versus

In addition, the contributor who writes an article on a non-notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, ideally, they will be discouraged and refrain from creating further unencyclopedic articles, or even editing them.

Which is funnier? In my opinion, the latter, which uses reframing and irony, as opposed to the former, which in its blatancy, misses the opportunity to be more humorous about whether discouraging certain editors is a good thing or not. Bongo matic 06:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is funnier. Sadly, not everyone appreciates irony and subtlety, but that's their loss. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, right! Protonk (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which fits the tone of the rest of the piece? Arguably if we are trying for deadpan satire, we would want the latter. With the joke being more about the words than simply using them. But I submit that's not the tone of the piece. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with latter. Subtle satire is best. –xeno ^talk 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm was implementing the subtle satire as you were writing the rebuttal. No prejudice to switching it back. –xeno ^talk 15:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I can't fathom the piece of satire that has both this line:

An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Oh no. Some writer worked hard on that article. But on the other hand, it's hardly our fault if it's unencyclopedic, fancrufty bollocks that stands as much chance of being a serious article as Boris Johnson is of being a credible politician.

and this line:

In addition, the contributor who writes an article on a non-notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, ideally, they will be discouraged and refrain from creating further unencyclopedic articles, or even editing them.

But w/e. Protonk (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just starting somewhere. I think the entire essay (which is a great concept and a worthy first draft) would benefit from a little more tongue (in its cheek). But since this is in (someone else's) user space, I thought I'd start with a small change and see if it gained traction—not least from the original author, who has yet to comment here. Bongo matic 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because the original author is usually editing under his normal user name :) Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary members

The honorary members section, what I think is the funniest section, was removed twice.[1] Ikip (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]